Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

dataprotectioncontrol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 269 posts

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#181

Post by quotemstr »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #177
M2Ys4U wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is a human right , and respecting it does not, in any way whatsoever, break the internet.

Specifically, Article 12 of the UDHR states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... Why isn't this Article at the forefront of any and all conversation re…

Who defines what "privacy" means? You? Why? Can you point me to the place where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks about cookies and FLoC? The UCHR is not a blank check for banning anything you want in the name of "privacy".

There are a lot of angry people in this thread stating what they want, but none have offered an argument for why we should structure society around their whims. Sorry, but "you shouldn't be able to collect information" isn't an argument. It's a wish. Nobody is under any obligation to indulge the wishes of random strangers.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#182

Post by godshatter »

mikro2nd wrote: post #129
presentation wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't think we want tracking cookies - it just doesn't matter what you want with all the incentives to track.

They do think that we want personalised ads, though, and tracking cookies are just the tech-at-hand that is the least-cost way to do that.

Do we want personalized ads, though? I don't, but I suspect I'm in a small minority. If I want to purchase something, I'll go do some research. I specifically don't want ads that are designed to try to get me to purchase something I don't need based on some manipulative psychological model based on my browsing behavior.

A quick search makes it apparent to me that most people do want personalized ads, or at least think they do, while at the same time most people don't want the behind-the-scenes tech that makes it possible.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#183

Post by eli »

yoz-y wrote: post #180
eli wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the ad blockers are not usually able to tell the difference between first-party ads and network ads. In practice both from an ad server. I think there's actually a great opportunity for someone to create an ad server that only serves first-party ads with no tracking.

The Deck was such a thing. It was sort of invite only because once you go first party you have no way to validate the user base so you need to trust the partner. For ads that result in direct sales this can be easy to do though.

It was more of an ad network, no? Also I think it shut down.

I'm talking about something even simpler than that. I have my own website and I have my own advertisers who want to put ads on it. I need a way to serve them and do contextual targeting (e.g. stories about a certain topic) and frequency capping and forecasting and the other sort of basic stuff I expect from Google Ad Manager.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#184

Post by denton-scratch »

ginko wrote: post #71
denton-scratch wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the banners are malicious compliance." I agree. But I don't think it's because adtech want you to think privacy is shit; I think it's because by compelling you to click, they can run Javascript in the context of a user gesture. I want a plugin that automatically says "OK" to cookie banners. My browser already blocks 3rd-party cookies. It only allows session cookies. Cookie banners are like fire-hydrant CAPTCHAs - th…

>I want a plugin that automatically says "OK" to cookie banners. Why would you want that? Even if you delete 3rd-party cookies that would still allow tracking companies to log your IP and track you through some other shady means which you've now consented to.

Because it makes no difference to my assurance-level which button I click. There's no way of knowing what they do serverside with your form submission (and it nearly always is a form submission).

Cookie approval has to be under the control of the user, not the website. So it has to be done by the browser or an extension. So if I have user-controlled cookie-approval, I might as well click "OK" on the form - the site might treat me better if I do.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#185

Post by denton-scratch »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #63
denton-scratch wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the banners are malicious compliance." I agree. But I don't think it's because adtech want you to think privacy is shit; I think it's because by compelling you to click, they can run Javascript in the context of a user gesture. I want a plugin that automatically says "OK" to cookie banners. My browser already blocks 3rd-party cookies. It only allows session cookies. Cookie banners are like fire-hydrant CAPTCHAs - th…

“ I want a plugin that automatically says "OK" to cookie banners.” Try “I don’t care about cookies” :) https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

Thanks - I'm looking into that.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#186

Post by morelisp »

Ensorceled wrote: post #147
morelisp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adtech companies don't want users to have an easy opt-out. They didn't want P3P. They didn't want DNT. They will not want this new spec, unless the spec is so bad that most users will agree by accident. Reminder that Internet advertising has a lot of actors with competing interests, and it is not usually the "adtech companies" who don't want users to have an easy-opt out, but publishers and to a lesser extent the a…

This is fundamentally misunderstanding how internet advertising works: advertises will pay higher CPM for precise targeting and attribution publishers want the best CPM they can get adtech uses as many tricks as possible to get as much information as possible about a user so they can maximize the CPM the advertiser will pay Publishers just end up doing what ever their adtech partners tell them will give them the best…

Haha, no. You're falling for the trick, or maybe you're just 10 years behind.

Publishers (and retailers, and anyone with a dataset) seek out adtech partner companies, to justify high CPMs and to sell their audience data. Adtech companies are market-makers, it's been years since the data they can get independently of supply-side partners was worth shit.

The publisher is the one with the cookie warning and consent forms! The publisher is the one who wants you to log in with a stable ID! The publisher is the one with a model of you regardless of your ad or tracker blocker settings! The adtech companies will sell you downstream for sure, but the publishers are the ones deploying as many tricks as possible to gather data.

And yeah, adtech companies will advise them about how to effectively gather data. That's a lot less about "tricks" and more about how to build salable taxonomies instead of data lakes full of garbage. To the extent it's about tricks, it's more often the adtech companies having to patiently but firmly explain, no, you can't just hardcode a single consent state for all visitors and send that to us in lieu of a real CMP. (A purely theoretical example, of course...)

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#187

Post by jjk166 »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #73
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They want you to associate them with privacy, and conclude that privacy laws are pointless and should be repealed. This is a sentiment expressed surprisingly often even here on HN.

A huge proportion of posters either work at adware companies or are big time owners of adware stocks. And as the Sinclair adage goes, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

This is intellectually lazy. You can't just assume that the large numbers of people who hold a position you disagree with do so only because they have some secret bias. It's a position which is not falsifiable and which absolves oneself of having to think critically about their own position.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#188

Post by _nalply »

hoppla wrote: post #160
leokennis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

You might show me ads, but not track me, privacy badger stops you from doing that. But if your ads are trying to track me, then privacy badger stops that too.

You are generous.

However I don't want any content which could be distracting or plain unsafe for mental wellbeing. One example are the ads for violent games on BlueStacks when I was using the emulator for Android education software for my children.

No thank you. Any content I can't control will be kicked.

Either by using adblockers or by just not using the service.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#189

Post by M2Ys4U »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #177
M2Ys4U wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is a human right , and respecting it does not, in any way whatsoever, break the internet.

Specifically, Article 12 of the UDHR states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... Why isn't this Article at the forefront of any and all conversation re…

Additionally Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights[0]

>Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

>There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[1]

>Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

and

>1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

>2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

>3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

Both of these documents are legally binding (the former on all member states of the Council of Europe,[2] and the latter on the EU and its member states)

[0] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_P...

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#190

Post by BitwiseFool »

_nalply wrote: post #188
hoppla wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might show me ads, but not track me, privacy badger stops you from doing that. But if your ads are trying to track me, then privacy badger stops that too.

You are generous. However I don't want any content which could be distracting or plain unsafe for mental wellbeing. One example are the ads for violent games on BlueStacks when I was using the emulator for Android education software for my children. No thank you. Any content I can't control will be kicked. Either by using adblockers or by just not using the service.

Advertising is mental pollution.

I dated a woman who experienced trauma in the past and she would routinely get horror movie trailers in YouTube. Even I found them disturbing. Neither of us had any interest in getting intrusive thoughts from watching assault and body horror. Putting in uBlock Origin did wonders for her well being.

Post reply on HN